Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and brief in support thereof (1916)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to with your comments.

We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

30 3. Whether or not notice of conditions or restrictions as to use applied to a patented article, snch as present in this case, is snfficient to pnt a purchaser of the article upon inquiry and to charge him with notice of the facts which 'Such inquiry would have developed, and render him guilty of infringement for a use without compliance with such conditions. Since the case of Straus et al. vs. Victor Talking Machine Company (No. 374), now before this Court on certiorari, calls for an interpretation by this Court, for the first time, of the Clayton Act, and its bearing upon the rights of patents owners, and also calls for a pronouncement as to the effect of the decision in Bauer vs. O'Donnell, 229 U. S., 1, upon the decision in the earlier case of Henry vs. Dick, 224 U. S., 1, it is conceived that the Court may not be unwilling to also take and review this case, which presents much the same questions upon only a slightly different state of facts. An authoritative determination by this Court of these very much discussed questions will render patent owners more certain and secure in their rights than at present. MELVILLE CHURCH, Counsel for Petitioner. 21687